5 ms·

After a certain amount of money to cover life expenses + recreation, additional money has diminishing returns. Once one reaches that point, leading a fulfilling

After a certain amount of money to cover life expenses + recreation, additional money has diminishing returns. Once one reaches that point, leading a fulfilling life becomes the next highest priority. I would speculate the kind of person who joins an anti-abuse team would not find accepting hush-money about the lack of anti-abuse systems to be something they would find aligning with their vision of a fulfilling life.

tayo42 4y ago
But nothing really came out of it? It's like twitters reputation got ruined or there was some repurcusion for the company freely talking about it
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  This implies that the poster is the kind of person who doesn't find fulfillment in making choices that align with their ethics system unless the world also aligns with their ethics system. Like I said before, I don't think someone who would join an anti-abuse team follows this behavior pattern. Additionally, the belief in one's own moral choices and behavior is often one of the important steps in finding fulfillment in yourself. If your fulfillment is reliant on external validation, you will always be found wanting.
- AshamedCaptain 4y ago
  What repercussion to expect? TFA is literally about Facebook doing the same thing, today. Don't see many pitchforks...
  - tayo42 4y ago
    Yeah that was my point, the thread was about being offered 40k to be quiet, but the thing I'm wondering is be quiet about what? Might as well take the 40k if there was nothing actually scandalous going on
asiachick 4y ago
What is that number for you? (and others) For me it's pretty dang high. Like on the order of 5-20 million USD in the bank. At some point I'm going to stop working. Rent and life expenses where I live currently are probably $100k a year (yes I could live on less or move, but that's part of the point). Let's say I stop working at 65 and I live to 85. That means I need at least 2 million dollars in the bank to keep spending $100k a year and it assumes I die at 85. If I happen to live to 95 or 105 I'd be S.O.L. Also add in escalting medical expenses, inflation, other issues and 5 million in the bank is IMO the minimum I'd need to feel I could discard other money and stop worrying about it. And that assumes I stop working at 65. If I was trying to stop earlier that would go up. I get at some I could theoretically live off the interest. My point is, at least for me > a certain amount of money to cover life expenses + recreation, additional money has diminishing returns. Is generally false. It's usually part of the "if you make $75k a year, more won't make you happier" but IMO that's not true because I'm screwed if that $75k a year stops. Also, source of that point is often misquoted. It says happiness doesn't increase with more money. But life satisfaction does increase forever with more money. Here's an article pointing out the original study did say satisfaction increased as well as a new study that says happiness increase too. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2021/02/07/new-study-shows-that-more-money-buys-more-happiness/?sh=673fbd5970d5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2021/02/07/new-study... If I had even more money I'd angel invest. I think that would be pretty fulfilling. If I had even more money there's all kinds of projects I'd like to fund. I expect I'd be pretty proud to fund them.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  I never said more money doesn't make you happier. I said more money has diminishing returns, and other things become more important. Even you are only able to suggest things that bring you personal fulfillment as a way you can use more money. This actually supports my point that it makes sense for someone to decline money that doesn't bring them fulfillment if fulfillment is what they're going for.
  - asiachick 4y ago
    Maybe, but as someone that turned down $6 million because of my conscience (sold stock solely because I didn't like feeling guilty holding it and it's gone up 4x-6x since then), I could do a ton of good things for others if I had that $6 million. It's not like we're talking about killing babies. Where' talking about signing an NDA or in my case not being 100% on board with a company's behavior in ways that are arguably ambiguous. As an example, if I had New York Times stock and was upset at their hypocrosy of complaining about ad supported companies while themselves being an ad supported company. Whether ads on NYT are good or bad is an debatable point. The point being, nothing the company who's stock I was holding was unambigously evil. But I chose my conscience over arguably trivial issues. In this particular case I think it was a mistake. If the company had been truely evil (by my definition of evil) then I'd be more okay with my decision.

tayo42 4y ago

But nothing really came out of it? It's like twitters reputation got ruined or there was some repurcusion for the company freely talking about it

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
This implies that the poster is the kind of person who doesn't find fulfillment in making choices that align with their ethics system unless the world also aligns with their ethics system. Like I said before, I don't think someone who would join an anti-abuse team follows this behavior pattern. Additionally, the belief in one's own moral choices and behavior is often one of the important steps in finding fulfillment in yourself. If your fulfillment is reliant on external validation, you will always be found wanting.
AshamedCaptain 4y ago
What repercussion to expect? TFA is literally about Facebook doing the same thing, today. Don't see many pitchforks...
- tayo42 4y ago
  Yeah that was my point, the thread was about being offered 40k to be quiet, but the thing I'm wondering is be quiet about what? Might as well take the 40k if there was nothing actually scandalous going on

asiachick 4y ago

What is that number for you? (and others) For me it's pretty dang high. Like on the order of 5-20 million USD in the bank. At some point I'm going to stop working. Rent and life expenses where I live currently are probably $100k a year (yes I could live on less or move, but that's part of the point). Let's say I stop working at 65 and I live to 85. That means I need at least 2 million dollars in the bank to keep spending $100k a year and it assumes I die at 85. If I happen to live to 95 or 105 I'd be S.O.L. Also add in escalting medical expenses, inflation, other issues and 5 million in the bank is IMO the minimum I'd need to feel I could discard other money and stop worrying about it. And that assumes I stop working at 65. If I was trying to stop earlier that would go up. I get at some I could theoretically live off the interest. My point is, at least for me > a certain amount of money to cover life expenses + recreation, additional money has diminishing returns. Is generally false. It's usually part of the "if you make $75k a year, more won't make you happier" but IMO that's not true because I'm screwed if that $75k a year stops. Also, source of that point is often misquoted. It says happiness doesn't increase with more money. But life satisfaction does increase forever with more money. Here's an article pointing out the original study did say satisfaction increased as well as a new study that says happiness increase too. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2021/02/07/new-study-shows-that-more-money-buys-more-happiness/?sh=673fbd5970d5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2021/02/07/new-study... If I had even more money I'd angel invest. I think that would be pretty fulfilling. If I had even more money there's all kinds of projects I'd like to fund. I expect I'd be pretty proud to fund them.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
I never said more money doesn't make you happier. I said more money has diminishing returns, and other things become more important. Even you are only able to suggest things that bring you personal fulfillment as a way you can use more money. This actually supports my point that it makes sense for someone to decline money that doesn't bring them fulfillment if fulfillment is what they're going for.
- asiachick 4y ago
  Maybe, but as someone that turned down $6 million because of my conscience (sold stock solely because I didn't like feeling guilty holding it and it's gone up 4x-6x since then), I could do a ton of good things for others if I had that $6 million. It's not like we're talking about killing babies. Where' talking about signing an NDA or in my case not being 100% on board with a company's behavior in ways that are arguably ambiguous. As an example, if I had New York Times stock and was upset at their hypocrosy of complaining about ad supported companies while themselves being an ad supported company. Whether ads on NYT are good or bad is an debatable point. The point being, nothing the company who's stock I was holding was unambigously evil. But I chose my conscience over arguably trivial issues. In this particular case I think it was a mistake. If the company had been truely evil (by my definition of evil) then I'd be more okay with my decision.